SC no to review Nirbhaya convict's death penalty

Defence counsel says will file mercy petition before President

“In light of the aggravating circumstances and considering that the case falls within the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’, the death penalty is confirmed” SC bench

‘Unfortunate’ grounds

The SC termed as ‘unfortunate’ the following grounds raised by defence lawyer in convict’s review petition:

1. Futility of awarding death sentence in ‘Kalyug’ where a person is no better than a dead body

2. Level of pollution in Delhi-NCR is so great that life is short

Last legal recourse

After rejection of review petition, Akshay has the option of filing a curative petition

Once his curative petition is dismissed by SC, he can file a mercy petition before President

MHA has already recommended rejection of mercy pleas of other three convicts

If President rejects Akshay’s mercy plea, he can challenge it before the SC

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, December 18

The Supreme Court today rejected Nirbhaya gang-rape and murder case convict Akshay Kumar’s petition seeking review of its 2017 verdict upholding the death penalty given to him and three other convicts.

“We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record in the appreciation of evidence or the findings of the judgment dated May 5, 2017. None of the grounds raised in the review petition call for a review,” a three-Judge Bench headed by Justice R Banumathi said, dismissing his review petition.

The Bench, which also included Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice AS Bopanna, also rejected his plea against death penalty. “In light of the aggravating circumstances and considering that the case falls within the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’, the death penalty is confirmed,” said the Bench.

It said it was “unfortunate” that grounds like “futility of awarding death sentence in ‘Kalyug’ where a person is no better than a dead body” and “level of pollution in Delhi-NCR is so great that life is short” were raised in the review plea. “We find it unfortunate that such grounds have been raised in the matter as serious as the present case,” it said.

After dismissal of his review petition, Akshay, who was cleaner of the bus in which the incident took place on December 16, 2012, has the option of filing a curative petition, which is the last legal recourse available to a person.

However, it was not clear if he would file a curative petition as his counsel AP Singh sought three-week time from the top court to file a mercy petition before the President. The MHA has already recommended rejection of mercy plea of other three convicts.

The Bench didn’t pass any directions on this point after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Bench that one week was sufficient for it. The top court had already dismissed the review petitions of the other three convicts, Mukesh (30), Pawan Gupta (23) and Vinay Sharma (24), in July last year, saying no grounds were made out by them for review of the 2017 verdict. All the convicts are presently lodged in the capital’s high-security Tihar Jail.

The 23-year-old paramedic student was brutally gang-raped on the intervening night of December 16-17, 2012, inside a running bus in South Delhi by six persons and severely assaulted before being thrown out on the road. She died on December 29, 2012, at a hospital in Singapore.

There were six accused in the case. One of them, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in the Tihar Jail while the lone juvenile accused was convicted by a juvenile justice board and later released from a reformatory after three years.

After the dismissal of Akshay’s review petition, a Delhi court directed the Tihar Jail authorities to seek response within a week from the four death row convicts in the case if they were filing mercy pleas against their executions with the President of India.

Additional Sessions Judge Satish Kumar Arora posted for January 7, 2020, the hearing on Delhi Government’s plea seeking issuance of death warrants for executing the convicts just after the apex court verdict, and said that it will wait for the copy of the judgment.